â?¢ It broadens the definition of the person who can invoke a shield against being sued for denying service or any other action if that denial is based on religious beliefs. Current law defines that as "a religious assembly or institution."

SB 1062 would expand it to "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization."

â?¢ It requires any person or organization who denies a request for service to show that their action is based on their religious beliefs, that they have "sincerely held" religious beliefs, and that a lawsuit or other sanction would substantially burden their religious beliefs.

Q: Why does Arizona need this bill?

A: Supporters have not pointed to any instance in which a business owner has been compelled to provide a service to someone who offends the business owner's religious beliefs. But they worry that without the shield provided by the bill, people could be forced to act contrary to their religious beliefs.

It passed the Senate on a party-line vote, 17-13, with Republicans in support. Since then, three GOP senators, including Worsley, have said they regret their votes and have asked Brewer to veto the bill.

The bill passed the House, 33-27, with mostly GOP support. Three Republicans joined with all 24 Democrats to vote against it.

Q: Why are people up in arms?

A: Opponents fear business owners would use the legal shield to deny service to any individual or group that offends a business owner's religious beliefs. Service to people from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community is the most commonly cited fear. But critics have noted this could apply to other situations, such as a business owner denying service to a Muslim because the owner is offended by Muslim beliefs.

Additionally, if signed into law, SB 1062 would override city ordinances in Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff that provide protections to LGBT people. It also could undermine private business policies that are written to include the gay community, the ACLU says.

Q: Would this bill legalize discrimination against gays?

A: No more than current state law, which does not provide protections for people based on sexual orientation. Therefore, it's already permissible to discriminate against gays.

Q: Can the NFL really pull out of Glendale for Super Bowl 2015 over this?

A: The NFL has said it is monitoring the bill, but has not commented beyond that. Logistically, finding a venue for a mega event that's just 11months off could be difficult.

Q: What are the next steps?

A: Brewer has until Saturday to either sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without her signature. What, if anything, happens after that is hard to predict until we know what Brewer decides.